Maybe it's a little early yet to kick this off, but I just wanted to say already that the fourth panel just cracks me up.

It's the expression on "Jimmy's" face, and the way he's fiendishly holding his bright yellow bag of M&Ms. It's the way that "Frank" is nursing his Snickers like an infant gumming a favorite toy. Throw in a little bit of profanity and you've got a scene so bizarre that it tickles my funny bone every time I see it.

I don't want to jinx it, but so far this is a great way to herald in the new series of improvs.

I found the coloring as well as the background extremely successfull. That's why the fourth panel is so funny, don't you think? You get the idea of smoky, somewhat filthy, regular local bar and a regular joe ordering his regular booze.

The scene could be from a bizarro world where alcohol is forbidden but chocolate not. Matriarchal society, that is. Just kidding But seriously, I bet the pint is full of hot chocolate.

This comic brings up a certain legal issue that I've been wondering about for a long time. Well a couple, actually. I'm hoping that, as a long-time comic veteran, Scott would know the answers, or maybe there's some lawyers out there.

So what is the deal with appropriating logos and placing them in your comics? Is that copy-write infringement, or a trade-mark violation, or whatever, and could that get you into trouble? You see it all the time in films, comics, etc.: they choose to replace recognizable brand names with similar-looking knock offs so as to disassociate with the real products. If you play any song in a movie, even if it's in the background on a documentary, you have to pay royalties to somebody. (Unless it's one of those "public domain" things.) What are the legal ramifications of creating comics which represent the world as it actually exists, full of recognizable logos and symbols?

And that segues into another similar question. What could the fallout be from using an actual person's likeness in a comic--not as a fictional character, but as themselves. I'm thinking particularly in a context that the individual might not necessarily be interested in seeing themself appear. For instance let's suppose, hypothetically, that a certain infamously outspoken writer/comic enthusiast appeared as a featured guest at an event, near the end of which he berrated you in front of a couple hundred people. Now supposing you wanted to write a comic about that event and publish it in some form or another. Could that outspoken writer sue you for slander or demand royalties for use of his face or anything? I know with newspapers and such, there's the libel laws which basically state that you can't be sued for libel if everything you print is true. So if you wrote the comic just as it happened would you be untouchable? Or do different laws apply in this case?

Here is what I know ... not being a lawyer or Scott, but being a graphic designer who has had the copy-RIGHT lecture at the begining of every class I took.

You are right about the possiblity about legal issues about Scott's comic using corporate logos, brands and design. Of course, Scott could have gotten premision from these companies before making this comic. At that point he would have to abide by whatever agreement met with that permision (usualy a copyright/trademark notice below the comic and an agreement that their products would not be used in a way that would be demeaning or misrepresent the brands). There is also the rare chance that these companies could have contacted Scott for "product placement". That tends to happen a lot in movies. Somehow, I doubt that either of these are true in this situation.

However, this is where we get into the editorial and artistic part of the discussion. There is a curtaint amount of first amendment rights that are given to the artist when it deals with public figures. You see this use in political cartoons in the newspapers. Geogre Bush just basicly has to eat his discontent over the hundreds of thousands of editorial cartoons drawn with him in it. So, if this writer/comic pissed you off, or just said something you disagree with, you can use this public figure in an editorial. Make sure it is a well thought-out opinion that is clear in the comic, not just mocking or vendictive. You will also see larger public figures in not just editorial usage, like the President, in comics and comic books. I can not tell you how many time I saw Bill Clinton in comic books when he was in office. Since these people are in the public eye, you can use their image as long as you are not making money off of their sole use. You can have David Letterman make a guest appearance in your comic without worrying, however if you want to make a Letterman comic, you need his permision and a license to use his likeness in your product (much like the KISS comics).

This can be used for products, to a point. I remember a lawsuit that Mattel had against an artist using Barbies in his art. The judge ruled that the artist was not violating trademark law with his Barbie art because Mattel was unable to provide sufficient proof that his art created confusion among customers over Barbie's true nature as a child's toy, or that his product constituted a "commercial" rather than "expressive" use of the Barbie doll. However, this does not mean you can go ahead and exploit various commerical products and brands. Just be very carefull in your use.

Is the whole "Kyle Baker" feel to the art just me? Anyway, Kyle's one of my favorites in the field. The range of expression conveyed when the eyes are scrunched shut is eclipsed only the shock when the eyes are depicted as wide, wide open. Maybe it is just me.

Glad to see the Hershey's syrup in the latest panel, I was getting worried that Scott had picked up a coporate sponsor in Mars...

So what is the deal with appropriating logos and placing them in your comics? Is that copy-write infringement, or a trade-mark violation, or whatever, and could that get you into trouble? You see it all the time in films, comics, etc.: they choose to replace recognizable brand names with similar-looking knock offs so as to disassociate with the real products. If you play any song in a movie, even if it's in the background on a documentary, you have to pay royalties to somebody. (Unless it's one of those "public domain" things.) What are the legal ramifications of creating comics which represent the world as it actually exists, full of recognizable logos and symbols?

Actually, in many movies, the company who owns the brand-name in question usually pays the studio for the afore mentioned product placement. It's free advertising. When a character in a movie blantantly drinks a can of Pepsi, it's usually because Pepsico ponied up some cash to the studio to display their product...and not have said character drinking a Coke instead. So, it follows that Hershey's, Nestle's, Mars, etc. should be paying Scott for featuring their products. That is if they're not already. , ,Scott.

Of course, Scott could have gone the MAD magazine route, and had the characters eating W&Ws, Snackers, Greeses, and Himshey's.

Quote:

Glad to see the Hershey's syrup in the latest panel

Personally, I prefer good ol' Fox's U-bet. As my father always says, "Ya can't make a good egg cream without it."

Quote:

I know from experimence that beer and chocolate don't go well together.

Many folks find that the chocolate flavor sets nicely against the bitterness of an Imperial-style stout (myself, I find them to be like Rauchbiers in that the first one is exquisite beyond compare, the second one is okay, and after the third one you curse the very concept and swear to avoid them forever).

Hm. Some panels go across, and some go down. Now, is it just me or is there a method to the madness? If a panel has one character in it, it's placed horizontally, but if there's two characters, then it's placed vertically (though panel 8's kind of in-between- 1 and 1/2 characters showing, placed to the right of the previous one). What happens when there are three characters in panel?_________________Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.

Actually, in many movies, the company who owns the brand-name in question usually pays the studio for the afore mentioned product placement. It's free advertising.

Sometimes the companies are weird about it though. I had a play produced at my school recently which included "The Poland Spring Guy" as a prominent character. The costume department contacted Poland Spring to see if they'd be willing to donate a uniform to the production. They're answer was pretty much "Hell no!" unless we paid them huge amounts of money in liscensing fees. They expected us to pay them for the priviledge of providing them with free advertising. The costumers went ahead and made a uniform themselves (including spiffy Poland Spring boxer shorts!). Since it was just an academic production, it wasn't really a concern. But in all future performances, I'll be changing the character to "The Polar Spring Guy."_________________TwentySevenLetters.comPicture Story TheatreThe Interrobang Theatre Company

Why do I get get the feeling our young bespectacled hipster is going to piss off the two old timers? Oh please let there be a bar fight! I luv violence in comics. I hope the hipster get his ass kicked!

Yeah, the guy on the left looks like Colburn, but that's Jimmy. The guy on the right- Frank- is the one who's looking a bit Nixon-ish.

That's the one people think looks like Nixon? Wow. I don't get that vibe at all. To me he looks more like a hybridization of Fred Flintstone and Tony Soprano. Either way, glad to know I'm not the only one seeing some Coburn in Jimmy.

But I don't really see Frank looking like Nixon. Nixon's nose was not bulbous like Frank's. It was more needle like, kind of like Bob Hope's. Frank reminds me more of Jack Webb after a few years of binge junk food consumtion, and hair loss.